Who won tonights debate?

The hypocrisy is blatant, I agree. I will not vote for Obama and thanks to McCain's lack of good judgment concerning his choice for VP, I am now 100%
certain that I will not be voting him either. What concerns me though is that most people are not concerned with the issues but rather seeing their
party "win" regardless of whether they really agree with their party or not. When you change your opinions on any subject matter simply because of
the "party" that you associate yourself with, you are helping to draw the dividing lines and are a wishy washy person who deserves to be told what
to do.

You should stand firm in your values regardless of the politicians... and because too many people have been fickle about values in favor of remaining
loyal to "their side," these roles of leadership in our country are jokes that are being filled by clowns putting on a good show. Yes, in this
debate, Biden won simply on the basis of what the objective should be in a debate, but he is just as fickle as those voting for any of these
"actors."

It is obvious to those who can think for themselves where those who are fickle on their values so that they can remain loyal to their party get their
opinions from

This video focuses on one side, but rest assured, this applies to BOTH sides. Way to let others do your thinking for you, America

I can both believe she is completely unqualified as a VP, and at the same time believe women are just as qualified as men.

yeah, you can do that. fact is though, we've never had a female president, or even a VP and for the same reasons you've witnessed recently. if
she's a democrat, she's xyz. if she's a republican, she's xyz. people claim they give the ladies a chance, but they don't, not really.

back in the late 70's, i graduated from high school. my dad had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, a few years prior and only had a short time left
to live. he could no longer work and mom's paycheck was our only source of income. but dad needed her to take care of him. so i went to work. at
the time, the equal opportunity bill had just been passed, and the various businesses had to fill their quota of minorities. since the area i lived
in didn't really have a racial variation, the only remaining minority was women. so i got a job, because of the equal opportunity bill, working in a
pepsi can making factory.

it was difficult, dangerous, loud, chemical and lead infested environment. we had to wear plugs in our ears, masks on our faces and safety glasses on
our eyes. there was no heat in the winter and no air in the summer. it was hard work. i made pretty good money because it was part of the steel
workers union. but the men, they did not want women in their factory. they made the job very difficult. they didn't know i was there because i was
the only support system my dad had left. as a result of the job, i was able to buy him the only color tv he would ever have in his lfe. i was able to
make it possible for mom to take care of him for the last 12 months of his life, which were very hard on all of us.

Listen, it isn't just WOMEN who aren't getting the chance. It is anyone who isn't *A* or *B*..

Case and point.. we just had a VERY qualified man who was ousted because he wasn't *A* or *B*.

This isn't an issue of male vs. female. It isn't an issue of black vs. white. It IS very much an issue of *who "they" (whoever THEY are) want and
*who SHOULD be in there.

Obama doesn't deserve this role any more than Palin. McCain doesn't deserve this position any more than the black man and the woman. None of these
people that are seriously being considered deserve this. They have all been wishy washy, ignorant to the values of the country, liars, blah blah blah.

Either side that makes it into the white house will not stop the train that we have boarded as a country.

What we NEEDED was someone who had REAL solutions and understood that it was up to US to stop the train... not a politician. We failed the grade in
getting that necessity and now we are going to get what we deserve as a country.

so basically what you're saying is.... the USA had a chance to get a woman in the white house but the only way she got in was as the wife of the
president or the wife of the VP, and now, it's too late, we're all going down the tubes or some such, yes? and even if we get a woman VP, it will
be just long enough to see the whole place crash and burn ?

haha, I am not sure how in the hell that you derived that meaning from my post. Not at all what I am saying. Obviously you are taking this "woman"
thing far too personally.

The way you come across, you sound like you would vote a crack whore into office simply based on the fact that she is a woman. A woman should not get
into office simply because she is a woman just as a man should not get into office simply because he is a man.

AAAHHHH!!! Does nobody see the MANIPULATION that has been grounded into our brains?? Why can't we start basing our decisions on things that REALLY
matter.. like REAL values that are based on the documents this country was founded on?? If you people would quit letting them divide us by illusions
of sexism and racism blah blah, maybe we could join forces and kick these clowns out of office.. ALL THE CLOWNS regardless of race or gender.

i realize this. i don't think hillary or sarah are the equivalent of crack whores, and examples such as that crack whore comment, are precisely
where the problem is. there will never be a woman good enough for office in this country because she will always have the prejudice of the people
and the opposing party's microscopic criticism massaging it for all its worth.

if in the hereafter i find out this decision was made by a bunch o' pagan guys, i'm gonna be livid, then i'll hug 'em and forgive 'em, cause
that's what we ladies do best -- fix the booboos....except as presidential candidates. in that case, we're idiots and ball busters.

Originally posted by undo
f in the hereafter i find out this decision was made by a bunch o' pagan guys,

What?

Not sure what that means. Are you prejudice against pagans?

It's not that I don't agree with some of the principles you are talking about, because I do. I just think you are extrapolating stuff from our posts
that simply is not there. It's like the ink blot tests, you are seeing what you want to. Look prejudices against women are real, no doubt, so you
don't need to intentionally fabricate it from our posts to explain that point.

I don't think Palin is qualified. I don't think it's sexist to address issues about her character. Nor do I think it's sexist to think Tina Fey's
skits are funny.

this country was founded by a bunch o' pagan guys.
by pagan i mean, they weren't christians, jews, muslims or buddhists.
they were guys who worshipped something called logic, reason, science,
and nature. they were deists and agnostics, and so forth. i dunno anything about those topics tho, cause i'm a woman.
just for the record. women can't be logical because we are emotional, too emotional. and if we happen to make sense, we are told our logic is flawed
or that we are being emotional (even if we make sense).

so maybe these guys that founded the country, all got together and said, NO MORE QUEENS.

NO MORE NUNS! ya know, that kinda thing, and made a
deal with each other that whenever and if ever, a woman gets close to such a position as the vp or presidency, get rid of it with extreme prejudice.
then it hits the media like a wildfire.

of course, that could be totally wrong. it may just be my imagination that israel had a female prime minister 30 years ago, and in the last 30, so
did britain. maybe it really isn't a good thing for our country to have a female leader. maybe she will break out in a menstrual fit and blow up the
whole planet (ignore the fact that golda meir and margaret thatcher didn't blow up the planet) on second thought, perhaps you're right. palin's
too scary, in fact, women are too scary, knowing myself as i do, i know i would blow up the planet first time someone taped pallet tags to my nipples
or dropped 100 lb band of steel on my foot.

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
This sexist cry out coming from the right is just one more example of the McPalin hypocrisy express. The manner in which they treated Hillary when she
began her campaign and when she was sky high was just unbelievable...

Are you referring to the comments made in this thread by certain members or is your comment just a general observation?

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
This sexist cry out coming from the right is just one more example of the McPalin hypocrisy express. The manner in which they treated Hillary when she
began her campaign and when she was sky high was just unbelievable...

Are you referring to the comments made in this thread by certain members or is your comment just a general observation?

Could qualify as both in any case. I think its pretty crazy that the "feminazis" can have such a double standard. They accuse males of generalizing
them into sex objects, while at the same time they generalize men as, well, d***s. Personally, my view is that if you want equal rights, then you have
to accept equal treatment. If you're going into a field where the applicants get grilled up and served as dinner, or at least given a dose of cyanide
and expected to run a marathon, then you have to accept that just because unworthy ones of you gender will get toasted. Sure, it can be sexism, but
sometimes its just the standards of the work. If you want to be equal to a man, then you gotta be willing to take it like a man. It's a hard
world. You think you're as good as any man? Prove it. Be so good that they can't even look at you.

and i keep going back to the point, that it's not about her worthiness. it's prejudice coupled with opposing party massaging that prejudice. look at
it this way: do you think we would accept a muslim or buddhist or pagan president any time in the next oh, decade, willingly?

Nope. not gonna happen. Why? Because the other side knows exactly what buttons to push to get rid of the opposition. so the only way they are gonna
get that position, is to pretend like they aren't what they are. Problem is, women can't pretend they aren't women, so that's one minority, you
will probably never see running the country (unless a woman gets a sex change at an early age, manages to cover it up her whole life, and pretend
she's a man...but what are the chances of that happening?

i mean do people actually believe sarah palin is gonna be the president?

Sorry, had to answer that question. Yes, I think there is a damn good possibility that Sarah Palin could be President if they are voted into office
and that is a VERY sobering thought to me... not because she is a woman, but because she has not only NOT shown she is competent enough, but has in
fact shown the opposite.. and part of the latter has to do with her showing that she can't make rational decisions not based in emotions, which is a
typical characteristic of the female gender.

(p.s. i just thought i'd quote the first and last part of your statement:
"not because she is a woman, "
"which is a typical characteristic of the female gender."

so wanna tell me how it's possible for it not to be because she's a woman if your rationale for not trusting her decisions is because she's a
woman, displaying typical characteristics of the female gender?

i'm not a lawyer, but i don't think that statement would hold up in a court of logic.

What is funny is that you are kind of proving that women tend to let emotions get in the way of their ability to be rational. Being a woman though, I
understand. Have been working fervently to discipline myself on this for about the last two years now and it never fails that something happens to
show me how far I am from achieving this trait that is a natural trait to men (although, I am not trying to achieve this to fulfill any other male
role than what it will serve for the sake of my sons... want to teach them what their father has no intention of teaching them).

Now, as this pertains to your reply.. if you were not being so "emotional" about this and being more "rational" you would have understood what you
took to be a contradiction was not actually so, but using logic actually makes perfect sense.

I am not against her simply based on the fact that she is a female, but the fact that she has shown that she lets her natural tendencies AS a female
cloud her perspective on things is A reason, but hardly the only one, that I don't think she is fit for a leadership role such as VP of this
country.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.